Will you be subscribing to allegedly?

[leforge]

I don't understand the over the top slagging of Allegedly channel. If you don't like it then don't buy it, surely? If the latest flavour of the month (whoever that may be) was behind Allegedly channel and not allegedly then the forum would be loving it. That's an undeniable fact.

Whether or not allegedly has banned BoxRec from his shows, BoxRec should still be objective - (I'm going to be unpopular saying it but) ... being objective is the bedrock of good journalism. BoxRec hasn't got any editorial allegiances to a fighter, promotional company or product so it shouldn't have any against a fighter, promoter, ect either.

When you look at the reality tv-esque style of coverage that Ch5 give boxing then you've got to take your hats off to Allegedly channel for producing such good coverage in the short space of time that they've had. As for the fights, I don't think it's half as bad as some people are making out. As I said earlier in the thread, we've asked for small hall promoters to get TV airtime and Allegedly channel are doing that as well as adding the FWP stable, GoldenBoy and Sauderland stables to their schedule.

Compare that to Sky. September and first week or 2 of October were good and December looks smashing too but there wasn't much at all in between. Why is this forum slating something it doesn't and won't pay for when what it does pay for hasn't really provided lately ether? It all goes back to the anti-allegedly'ness of the forum.

And lets give Buncey some credit for giving as much coverage for British boxing in his work as he can, whereas I saw on Joe Gallagher's Twitter last week (or maybe the one before) that Sky didn't mention John Murray's fight with Rios. Why? Because it isn't on Sky. We should look both ways, not just one.

Sky schedule was probably hit by Warren walking out on it. Last two weeks due to Maloney and Hatton shows falling through or should sky have shown weak cards just to fill the date. How may people do you think are watching allegedly or likely to subcribe? I bet you it be less than the 100k regular sky boxing viewers which is not very good as well. Lindsay-Appleby 42,000 people watched this on Setanta that would have included casual fans as well only the big fights involving UK fighters on Setanta got over 100,000 viewers. Channel 5 coverage may not be great but people are watching it!
Murray fight might get mentioned its not for few weeks.

[dondada]

I find all this a tad childish. Ian McNeilly's problem should be HIS problem and he using his platform as a weapon to vent his petty frustrations which are so biased he should work for the North Koreans...if he were the bigger man he would sort his problems out with the people he has them with directly and not spout his self-opiniated bile to everyone else.

Ayling, as for me sorting out my problems with your company directly, talk to your colleagues, FFS. When BoxRec News started, although it went against my better judgement, I got in touch with the press representative of FWP (or was it SN then, I forget) and basically offered an olive branch - new site, new slate, etc. I didn't want to as it would have gone tits up in five minutes but to avoid this type of criticism, I did just that. I didn't get a reply - which is a bit unusual because the same person knows how to get in touch when he wants something.

So, at least I tried. It's gone way beyond getting a credential - I don't want them, seriously, nor for any writer working for BoxRec News. It's not worth the ball ache of dealing with tiresome, over-sensitive calls post-report.

As for me working for the North Koreans, this is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Don't the North Koreans stop free speech? I'm a big advocate of this. Ayling - go and find some 'self-opinionated bile' that I've written on here. You won't. And why? Because our laws in this regard are so f**king sh1tty, I'm not allowed to. I only wish I was, but expressing even an honest and fair opinion can get one into bother these days.

[dondada]

Whether or not allegedly has banned BoxRec from his shows, BoxRec should still be objective - (I'm going to be unpopular saying it but) ... being objective is the bedrock of good journalism.

Yes, thanks for that.

The news site still is objective.

Go and find some wildly biased fight reports on BoxRec News.

[dewipowell]

Whether or not allegedly has banned BoxRec from his shows, BoxRec should still be objective - (I'm going to be unpopular saying it but) ... being objective is the bedrock of good journalism.

Yes, thanks for that.

The news site still is objective.

Go and find some wildly biased fight reports on BoxRec News.

It's all under the same banner though isn't it? Just because they're on different domains doesn't mean that they have no relation to each other.

[jabnmove]

In answer to an earlier question about why people don't like Warren, I can only provide my personal reasons. I've never met the guy, have no involvement in boxing as anything other than a genuine fight fan (or not, depending on your point of view), so I have no axe to grind.

I don't like the way he presents himself - There was an interview sometime over the last year on Ringside with Warren pulling up to his mansion in his Rolls, sitting behind his desk with a whole load of "look at how great I am" boxing paraphernalia surrounding him as he tries to say there's no money in boxing. Be rich and modest or poor and humble but don't try and play the poor injured party when you are giving it the Loadsamoney treatment.

I don't like his dismissal of the internet. Yes, I'm a keyboard warrior - I sit expressing opinions without having gone through the pain of trying to promote a show or managing a fighters career. But I do pay money to watch boxing and the internet allows me to interact with like-minded people in a way that has never existed before. The internet has done so much for boxing over the past 5-10 years, to summarily dismiss makes him seem a bit of an old fart. He may not like what people say, but the world we live in entitles and enables us to express our opinions. He then sends his moronic lackey on to spout nonsense, generate additional ill-feeling towards FWP and continue to justify the lack of engagement with the 'net.

I don't like his public treatment of fighters. His recent criticism of Frankie Gavin and Kevin Mitchell didn't sit right. Yes Gavin could have handled things better and there are clearly problems behind the scenes for both Frankie and Kevin, but to bawl him out in public just seems a bit snidey. By all means, be angry behind the scenes, but I would have thought a fighter would prefer their promoter to show some support in the national press rather than digging the knife in a little further. By comparison, you would never get Sir Alex Ferguson publicly criticising one of his players for off the pitch activities, even though he probably goes ape at them privately. It comes back to the first point - with Warren it always seems to be about him, whereas for me it is all about the fighters. Which brings me to....

I don't like the manner of the falling out with Joe Calzaghe or, if true, the alleged non-payment of fees for the hire of the Millennium.

The Ringside feature, which I just watched back on Youtube, would have been created by Sky to give the fans reasonably accurate insight into how one of the biggest figures in UK boxing lives day to day, however judging by the above it seems that you would rather be misinformed that Allegedly drove a Skoda and lived in two bedroom semi? Sky would have asked for these camera shots so they could give an accurate snapshot of a day in his life, the reality is if he tried to misinterpret his lifestyle you would probably criticise him even more.

The more ridiculous comment you make is the comment about his lack of digital savvyness. I'm sorry but how many 60 year old men do you know that spend all day Tweeting and posting on online forums? Does your father or grandfather come on here? If so they are one of very few in a generation that sees much more prominence in the conventional established media.

I agree with you that the internet has done terrific things for boxing, however one hugely negative thing it has done is allow people such as yourself to criticize much too easily and without being accountable. As a result rather than forums such as this being the invaluable resource for boxing's influencers that they should be, a tool which these influencers can use to produce a product that is in line with fans want, they are instead hate-filled,partizan and in no way constructive so end up being significantly less effective than they should be.

Attacks such as the use of the term "C**tNation", used by the editor of this site (who really should know better) in effect make it so these forums aren't taken as seriously as they should be;with C**tNation (as this excellent journalist calls it) there is the opportunity of creating somewhere where you don't have to work as hard to find boxing as we have all had to in the past.

And if you are concerned enough to come on here and voice your opinions about boxing then surely you are concerned enough to actually watch boxing...

[magnus]

Maybe one day promotional outfits and their employees will realise that the members of forums such as these are existing or potential “customers” and think about the implications of some of their more bitter rants.

That said, as it stands I will be subscribing. I’m a bit of a domestic boxing nerd, so paying £2.50 a week for a 3 or 4 hour live show, plus international cards is worth it to me.

[earsjohn]

In answer to an earlier question about why people don't like Warren, I can only provide my personal reasons. I've never met the guy, have no involvement in boxing as anything other than a genuine fight fan (or not, depending on your point of view), so I have no axe to grind.

I don't like the way he presents himself - There was an interview sometime over the last year on Ringside with Warren pulling up to his mansion in his Rolls, sitting behind his desk with a whole load of "look at how great I am" boxing paraphernalia surrounding him as he tries to say there's no money in boxing. Be rich and modest or poor and humble but don't try and play the poor injured party when you are giving it the Loadsamoney treatment.

I don't like his dismissal of the internet. Yes, I'm a keyboard warrior - I sit expressing opinions without having gone through the pain of trying to promote a show or managing a fighters career. But I do pay money to watch boxing and the internet allows me to interact with like-minded people in a way that has never existed before. The internet has done so much for boxing over the past 5-10 years, to summarily dismiss makes him seem a bit of an old fart. He may not like what people say, but the world we live in entitles and enables us to express our opinions. He then sends his moronic lackey on to spout nonsense, generate additional ill-feeling towards FWP and continue to justify the lack of engagement with the 'net.

I don't like his public treatment of fighters. His recent criticism of Frankie Gavin and Kevin Mitchell didn't sit right. Yes Gavin could have handled things better and there are clearly problems behind the scenes for both Frankie and Kevin, but to bawl him out in public just seems a bit snidey. By all means, be angry behind the scenes, but I would have thought a fighter would prefer their promoter to show some support in the national press rather than digging the knife in a little further. By comparison, you would never get Sir Alex Ferguson publicly criticising one of his players for off the pitch activities, even though he probably goes ape at them privately. It comes back to the first point - with Warren it always seems to be about him, whereas for me it is all about the fighters. Which brings me to....

I don't like the manner of the falling out with Joe Calzaghe or, if true, the alleged non-payment of fees for the hire of the Millennium.

I'm going to ignore the libellous comments at the end here and focus on some of your other ridiculous points.

The Ringside feature, which I just watched back on Youtube, would have been created by Sky to give the fans reasonably accurate insight into how one of the biggest figures in UK boxing lives day to day, however judging by the above it seems that you would rather be misinformed that Allegedly drove a Skoda and lived in two bedroom semi? Sky would have asked for these camera shots so they could give an accurate snapshot of a day in his life, the reality is if he tried to misinterpret his lifestyle you would probably criticise him even more.

The more ridiculous comment you make is the comment about his lack of digital savvyness. I'm sorry but how many 60 year old men do you know that spend all day Tweeting and posting on online forums? Does your father or grandfather come on here? If so they are one of very few in a generation that sees much more prominence in the conventional established media.

I agree with you that the internet has done terrific things for boxing, however one hugely negative thing it has done is allow people such as yourself to criticize much too easily and without being accountable. As a result rather than forums such as this being the invaluable resource for boxing's influencers that they should be, a tool which these influencers can use to produce a product that is in line with fans want, they are instead hate-filled,partizan and in no way constructive so end up being significantly less effective than they should be.

Attacks such as the use of the term "C**tNation", used by the editor of this site (who really should know better) in effect make it so these forums aren't taken as seriously as they should be;with C**tNation (as this excellent journalist calls it) there is the opportunity of creating somewhere where you don't have to work as hard to find boxing as we have all had to in the past.

And if you are people all concerned enough to come on here and voice your opinions about boxing then surely you are concerned enough to actually watch boxing...

Which bit is libellous? I'll happily remove it as I wouldn't want to attract lawyers attention.

My problem was not purely with the Ringside feature; as I wrote it was the image portrayed along with the insistent claims that he makes no money from the sport. As I said it's one or the other. And it's not just Sky - Frank has always come across like that to me. It's a personal view formed over many years of following boxing, not as a result of a one off feature.

While I may not expect Warren himself to fully engage in the modern world, my complaint was that he simply dismisses it. As the head of Britains largest promotional stable, in a sport where public engagement has to be seen as crucial to commercial success, it doesn't take much for him to pass on responsibility for making the most of the various media. He has two sons who have taken on some promotional duties, Could they not be responsible if it's simply a generational thing? I guess you missed the BM article on Al Bernstein? And there are hundreds of other 60+ guys in boxing who have joined the 21st century.

I've tried to be constructive in providing the reasons that I am currently unconvinced about parting with the money that I work to earn. The response I have received from Steve Bunce, a allegedly employee is that I am pompous and a pillock. Which side of the debate comes across as hate-filled and partisan?

I am committed enough to watch boxing, but I am financially aware enough to think before I spend my money.

[dondada]

Whether or not allegedly has banned BoxRec from his shows, BoxRec should still be objective - (I'm going to be unpopular saying it but) ... being objective is the bedrock of good journalism.

Yes, thanks for that.

The news site still is objective.

Go and find some wildly biased fight reports on BoxRec News.

It's all under the same banner though isn't it? Just because they're on different domains doesn't mean that they have no relation to each other.

I'm a bit slow on the uptake here. I think I must be missing the point, forgive me.

Yes, I suppose they're under the same banner.

What I'm saying is that articles on the news site should be judged on their own merits as they have nothing to do with the forum.

I'm not sure if you were accusing the news site of a lack of objectivity. If not, fine. If so, I'd appreciate it if you would find something to substantiate your claims.

And, of course, one can still have an opinion whilst remaining objective, otherwise reports, etc. would be incredibly boring.

[jabnmove]

In answer to an earlier question about why people don't like Warren, I can only provide my personal reasons. I've never met the guy, have no involvement in boxing as anything other than a genuine fight fan (or not, depending on your point of view), so I have no axe to grind.

I don't like the way he presents himself - There was an interview sometime over the last year on Ringside with Warren pulling up to his mansion in his Rolls, sitting behind his desk with a whole load of "look at how great I am" boxing paraphernalia surrounding him as he tries to say there's no money in boxing. Be rich and modest or poor and humble but don't try and play the poor injured party when you are giving it the Loadsamoney treatment.

I don't like his dismissal of the internet. Yes, I'm a keyboard warrior - I sit expressing opinions without having gone through the pain of trying to promote a show or managing a fighters career. But I do pay money to watch boxing and the internet allows me to interact with like-minded people in a way that has never existed before. The internet has done so much for boxing over the past 5-10 years, to summarily dismiss makes him seem a bit of an old fart. He may not like what people say, but the world we live in entitles and enables us to express our opinions. He then sends his moronic lackey on to spout nonsense, generate additional ill-feeling towards FWP and continue to justify the lack of engagement with the 'net.

I don't like his public treatment of fighters. His recent criticism of Frankie Gavin and Kevin Mitchell didn't sit right. Yes Gavin could have handled things better and there are clearly problems behind the scenes for both Frankie and Kevin, but to bawl him out in public just seems a bit snidey. By all means, be angry behind the scenes, but I would have thought a fighter would prefer their promoter to show some support in the national press rather than digging the knife in a little further. By comparison, you would never get Sir Alex Ferguson publicly criticising one of his players for off the pitch activities, even though he probably goes ape at them privately. It comes back to the first point - with Warren it always seems to be about him, whereas for me it is all about the fighters. Which brings me to....

I don't like the manner of the falling out with Joe Calzaghe or, if true, the alleged non-payment of fees for the hire of the Millennium.

I'm going to ignore the libellous comments at the end here and focus on some of your other ridiculous points.

The Ringside feature, which I just watched back on Youtube, would have been created by Sky to give the fans reasonably accurate insight into how one of the biggest figures in UK boxing lives day to day, however judging by the above it seems that you would rather be misinformed that Allegedly drove a Skoda and lived in two bedroom semi? Sky would have asked for these camera shots so they could give an accurate snapshot of a day in his life, the reality is if he tried to misinterpret his lifestyle you would probably criticise him even more.

The more ridiculous comment you make is the comment about his lack of digital savvyness. I'm sorry but how many 60 year old men do you know that spend all day Tweeting and posting on online forums? Does your father or grandfather come on here? If so they are one of very few in a generation that sees much more prominence in the conventional established media.

I agree with you that the internet has done terrific things for boxing, however one hugely negative thing it has done is allow people such as yourself to criticize much too easily and without being accountable. As a result rather than forums such as this being the invaluable resource for boxing's influencers that they should be, a tool which these influencers can use to produce a product that is in line with fans want, they are instead hate-filled,partizan and in no way constructive so end up being significantly less effective than they should be.

Attacks such as the use of the term "C**tNation", used by the editor of this site (who really should know better) in effect make it so these forums aren't taken as seriously as they should be;with C**tNation (as this excellent journalist calls it) there is the opportunity of creating somewhere where you don't have to work as hard to find boxing as we have all had to in the past.

And if you are people all concerned enough to come on here and voice your opinions about boxing then surely you are concerned enough to actually watch boxing...

Which bit is libellous? I'll happily remove it as I wouldn't want to attract lawyers attention.

My problem was not purely with the Ringside feature; as I wrote it was the image portrayed along with the insistent claims that he makes no money from the sport. As I said it's one or the other. And it's not just Sky - Frank has always come across like that to me. It's a personal view formed over many years of following boxing, not as a result of a one off feature.

While I may not expect Warren himself to fully engage in the modern world, my complaint was that he simply dismisses it. As the head of Britains largest promotional stable, in a sport where public engagement has to be seen as crucial to commercial success, it doesn't take much for him to pass on responsibility for making the most of the various media. He has two sons who have taken on some promotional duties, Could they not be responsible if it's simply a generational thing? I guess you missed the BM article on Al Bernstein? And there are hundreds of other 60+ guys in boxing who have joined the 21st century.

I've tried to be constructive in providing the reasons that I am currently unconvinced about parting with the money that I work to earn. The response I have received from Steve Bunce, a Allegedly channel employee is that I am pompous and a pillock. Which side of the debate comes across as hate-filled and partisan?

I am committed enough to watch boxing, but I am financially aware enough to think before I spend my money.

Absolutely we all look at what we have in our wallets before spending it but I think the biggest convincer is the level of live boxing coverage.

This is the single biggest reason to commit to the channel, not who is involved in it. I think its better to base your decision on what you are buying as a product rather than who is selling you it.

In terms of the digital stuff I follow allegedly Promotions on Twitter,on Saturday they tweeted updates of the action all night, and it seems like they have more digital video content than any other promoter so I think as a promotions company they are fairly in touch digitally.

[Jeff Thomas]

This thing about being neutral as a journo is not at all true; what makes Steve bunce a decent writer is his sometimes horribly biased opinions! I like those articles- but we won't be seeing them anymore by the looks of it! I don't blame him either-

[dondada]

I'm going to ignore the libellous comments at the end here and focus on some of your other ridiculous points.

Which bit is libellous? I'll happily remove it as I wouldn't want to attract lawyers attention.

None of it. This is the problem. I'm accused of employing standards more at home in North Korea (by Boxing Chat but jabnmove is from the same stable, trust me on that) but - it would appear from the above exchange that you've said something they don't like and libel is immediately mentioned.

I notice a bit of a contradiction here.

[Jeff Thomas]

I'm going to ignore the libellous comments at the end here and focus on some of your other ridiculous points.

The Ringside feature, which I just watched back on Youtube, would have been created by Sky to give the fans reasonably accurate insight into how one of the biggest figures in UK boxing lives day to day, however judging by the above it seems that you would rather be misinformed that Allegedly drove a Skoda and lived in two bedroom semi? Sky would have asked for these camera shots so they could give an accurate snapshot of a day in his life, the reality is if he tried to misinterpret his lifestyle you would probably criticise him even more.

The more ridiculous comment you make is the comment about his lack of digital savvyness. I'm sorry but how many 60 year old men do you know that spend all day Tweeting and posting on online forums? Does your father or grandfather come on here? If so they are one of very few in a generation that sees much more prominence in the conventional established media.

I agree with you that the internet has done terrific things for boxing, however one hugely negative thing it has done is allow people such as yourself to criticize much too easily and without being accountable. As a result rather than forums such as this being the invaluable resource for boxing's influencers that they should be, a tool which these influencers can use to produce a product that is in line with fans want, they are instead hate-filled,partizan and in no way constructive so end up being significantly less effective than they should be.

Attacks such as the use of the term "C**tNation", used by the editor of this site (who really should know better) in effect make it so these forums aren't taken as seriously as they should be;with C**tNation (as this excellent journalist calls it) there is the opportunity of creating somewhere where you don't have to work as hard to find boxing as we have all had to in the past.

And if you are people all concerned enough to come on here and voice your opinions about boxing then surely you are concerned enough to actually watch boxing...

Which bit is libellous? I'll happily remove it as I wouldn't want to attract lawyers attention.

My problem was not purely with the Ringside feature; as I wrote it was the image portrayed along with the insistent claims that he makes no money from the sport. As I said it's one or the other. And it's not just Sky - Frank has always come across like that to me. It's a personal view formed over many years of following boxing, not as a result of a one off feature.

While I may not expect Warren himself to fully engage in the modern world, my complaint was that he simply dismisses it. As the head of Britains largest promotional stable, in a sport where public engagement has to be seen as crucial to commercial success, it doesn't take much for him to pass on responsibility for making the most of the various media. He has two sons who have taken on some promotional duties, Could they not be responsible if it's simply a generational thing? I guess you missed the BM article on Al Bernstein? And there are hundreds of other 60+ guys in boxing who have joined the 21st century.

I've tried to be constructive in providing the reasons that I am currently unconvinced about parting with the money that I work to earn. The response I have received from Steve Bunce, a Allegedly channel employee is that I am pompous and a pillock. Which side of the debate comes across as hate-filled and partisan?

I am committed enough to watch boxing, but I am financially aware enough to think before I spend my money.

Absolutely we all look at what we have in our wallets before spending it but I think the biggest convincer is the level of live boxing coverage.

This is the single biggest reason to commit to the channel, not who is involved in it. I think its better to base your decision on what you are buying as a product rather than who is selling you it.

In terms of the digital stuff I follow allegedly Promotions on Twitter,on Saturday they tweeted updates of the action all night, and it seems like they have more digital video content than any other promoter so I think as a promotions company they are fairly in touch digitally.

but not in touch with the fans? You guys don't like any critism- you don't talk to fans! Compare you guys with the UFC- seriously behind in terms of customer relations- as a fan I really can't think how you as a company could do a worse job of dealing with the public.

And your absolutely right, virtually any other promoter could have launched the channel to greater adulation but whose fault is that? I don't have anything against you guys but as a complete neutral you simply have to see that you guys have done so much to damage your own credibility - the calzaghe thing, the ppv's, the new channel further pushing the sport from casuals, the horrible newspaper articles.

It seems that you guys don't want to accept that the public is so much more aware these days. You leave these negative things in the open often with no explanation and that's what I don't like when I think of your company. there is another side to every story but we never hear it.

FW has done some great things over the years but in recent years it seems that only your huge resources of cash keep you ahead of the pack. There is so little in the way of initiative from you at your shows, it's just the same package from 20 years ago but with lesser known fighters and thus less interesting bills.

Kudos for putting the channel together and I hope it works out for everyone involved but I have a feeling your going to struggle based on the way the company has been handled of late. I can't honestly see what the problem is with liaising with fans in a positive way.

[Jeff Thomas]

This thing about being neutral as a journo is not at all true; what makes Steve bunce a decent writer is his sometimes horribly biased opinions! I like those articles- but we won't be seeing them anymore by the looks of it! I don't blame him either-

In my opinion, Buncey is the ultimate conformist. He has this reputation as a bit of a wildcard, with those who know no better, but he's anything but. As I see it, If you're paying him, he'll write whatever you want him to write/say whatever you want him to say. That's why he'll never go short of work; even when television boxing has died - assuming it dies before he does - he'll find another outlet. You'll never go down as a great man with that approach but you'll stay fat, clothed and housed, which is all that really matters.

I've seen him write some pretty outlandish things in boxing monthly which I liked

[leforge]

Which bit is libellous? I'll happily remove it as I wouldn't want to attract lawyers attention.

My problem was not purely with the Ringside feature; as I wrote it was the image portrayed along with the insistent claims that he makes no money from the sport. As I said it's one or the other. And it's not just Sky - Frank has always come across like that to me. It's a personal view formed over many years of following boxing, not as a result of a one off feature.

While I may not expect Warren himself to fully engage in the modern world, my complaint was that he simply dismisses it. As the head of Britains largest promotional stable, in a sport where public engagement has to be seen as crucial to commercial success, it doesn't take much for him to pass on responsibility for making the most of the various media. He has two sons who have taken on some promotional duties, Could they not be responsible if it's simply a generational thing? I guess you missed the BM article on Al Bernstein? And there are hundreds of other 60+ guys in boxing who have joined the 21st century.

I've tried to be constructive in providing the reasons that I am currently unconvinced about parting with the money that I work to earn. The response I have received from Steve Bunce, a Allegedly channel employee is that I am pompous and a pillock. Which side of the debate comes across as hate-filled and partisan?

I am committed enough to watch boxing, but I am financially aware enough to think before I spend my money.

Absolutely we all look at what we have in our wallets before spending it but I think the biggest convincer is the level of live boxing coverage.

This is the single biggest reason to commit to the channel, not who is involved in it. I think its better to base your decision on what you are buying as a product rather than who is selling you it.

In terms of the digital stuff I follow allegedly Promotions on Twitter,on Saturday they tweeted updates of the action all night, and it seems like they have more digital video content than any other promoter so I think as a promotions company they are fairly in touch digitally.

but not in touch with the fans? You guys don't like any critism- you don't talk to fans! Compare you guys with the UFC- seriously behind in terms of customer relations- as a fan I really can't think how you as a company could do a worse job of dealing with the public.

And your absolutely right, virtually any other promoter could have launched the channel to greater adulation but whose fault is that? I don't have anything against you guys but as a complete neutral you simply have to see that you guys have done so much to damage your own credibility - the calzaghe thing, the ppv's, the new channel further pushing the sport from casuals, the horrible newspaper articles.

It seems that you guys don't want to accept that the public is so much more aware these days. You leave these negative things in the open often with no explanation and that's what I don't like when I think of your company. there is another side to every story but we never hear it.

FW has done some great things over the years but in recent years it seems that only your huge resources of cash keep you ahead of the pack. There is so little in the way of initiative from you at your shows, it's just the same package from 20 years ago but with lesser known fighters and thus less interesting bills.

Kudos for putting the channel together and I hope it works out for everyone involved but I have a feeling your going to struggle based on the way the company has been handled of late. I can't honestly see what the problem is with liaising with fans in a positive way.

Good post Jeff. But even if the channel had the backing of all on here it still going to find it hard to get the subscribers required to make it work.

[dondada]

Attacks such as the use of the term "C**tNation", used by the editor of this site (who really should know better) in effect make it so these forums aren't taken as seriously as they should be

In saying that, this is clearly defamatory.

I am not the editor of this site

[Jeff Thomas]

I'd have an easier time finding it in my heart to recommend it if I felt I had some affinity to the promoter

[Dan Dares]

Whether or not allegedly has banned BoxRec from his shows, BoxRec should still be objective - (I'm going to be unpopular saying it but) ... being objective is the bedrock of good journalism.

Yes, thanks for that.

The news site still is objective.

Go and find some wildly biased fight reports on BoxRec News.

It's all under the same banner though isn't it? Just because they're on different domains doesn't mean that they have no relation to each other.

Not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that BoxRec News isn't objective?

As you progress in your fledgling career in journalism, if indeed that is the career you choose, you'll realise the real significance of objectivity, rather than spewing out the textbook definition of it.

When people get paid to do press, all objectivity goes out of the window, and its all about arse-licking and pound notes. Ask Buncey.

I'll illustrate further - I wouldn't fancy reading anything you wrote about Cleverly, or Wales. Anything else you write about, I'll gladly have a butchers.

[jabnmove]

[[/quote] but not in touch with the fans? You guys don't like any critism- you don't talk to fans! Compare you guys with the UFC- seriously behind in terms of customer relations- as a fan I really can't think how you as a company could do a worse job of dealing with the public.

And your absolutely right, virtually any other promoter could have launched the channel to greater adulation but whose fault is that? I don't have anything against you guys but as a complete neutral you simply have to see that you guys have done so much to damage your own credibility - the calzaghe thing, the ppv's, the new channel further pushing the sport from casuals, the horrible newspaper articles.

It seems that you guys don't want to accept that the public is so much more aware these days. You leave these negative things in the open often with no explanation and that's what I don't like when I think of your company. there is another side to every story but we never hear it.

FW has done some great things over the years but in recent years it seems that only your huge resources of cash keep you ahead of the pack. There is so little in the way of initiative from you at your shows, it's just the same package from 20 years ago but with lesser known fighters and thus less interesting bills.

Kudos for putting the channel together and I hope it works out for everyone involved but I have a feeling your going to struggle based on the way the company has been handled of late. I can't honestly see what the problem is with liaising with fans in a positive way.[/quote]

I'm sure they would always be open to listening to what the fans want as consumer feedback/advice will always play a huge part in any business.

I'm also sure if some users of this forum used constructive criticism rather than blindly attacking them before making an impartial decision, they would take a lot more notice of what was being said and everyone would be much more happy DD

[dewipowell]

Yes, thanks for that.

The news site still is objective.

Go and find some wildly biased fight reports on BoxRec News.

It's all under the same banner though isn't it? Just because they're on different domains doesn't mean that they have no relation to each other.

Not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that BoxRec News isn't objective?

As you progress in your fledgling career in journalism, if indeed that is the career you choose, you'll realise the real significance of objectivity, rather than spewing out the textbook definition of it.

When people get paid to do press, all objectivity goes out of the window, and its all about arse-licking and pound notes. Ask Buncey.

I'll illustrate further - I wouldn't fancy reading anything you wrote about Cleverly, or Wales. Anything else you write about, I'll gladly have a butchers.

I've haven't said that BoxRec news isn't objective, I didn't single that out at all. I should have been clearer. I think the BoxRec news editor perusing a personal issue with a promoter on the BoxRec forum isn't objective. And my comment about them being under the same banner meant that the forum and the news site may be on different domain names but they're both BoxRec sites.

As for my work for Nathan's website, I think there's a difference between journalism and PR but I also think that I've always been as objective as I can be. I have to represent Nathan but it's never been anywhere near going over the balance, check my 'Rise and Rivalry of Tony Bellew' piece, or my interview with Bellew or the fight report of Clev-Bellew.

And whatever I've written about Welsh boxing has been objective (in my opinion, anyway!), you can see the Welsh Dragons series I did for Boxing News' website through the summer and judge for yourself.

There's 3 articles on SecondsOut that I've done this weekend, feel free to have a butchers but one's about a Welsh boxer so you'll obviously have to miss that

[dondada]

It's all under the same banner though isn't it? Just because they're on different domains doesn't mean that they have no relation to each other.

Not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that BoxRec News isn't objective?

As you progress in your fledgling career in journalism, if indeed that is the career you choose, you'll realise the real significance of objectivity, rather than spewing out the textbook definition of it.

When people get paid to do press, all objectivity goes out of the window, and its all about arse-licking and pound notes. Ask Buncey.

I'll illustrate further - I wouldn't fancy reading anything you wrote about Cleverly, or Wales. Anything else you write about, I'll gladly have a butchers.

Boxrec News do a great job. Ian's juggling his passion with full-time work, a family and the difficulties of living in Sheffield. Ironically a lot of the toing and froing is between people who are involved in the sport across the levels and who have to possess that core passion as it is easier to make a living selling crotchless panties in Afghanistan than it is to earn from boxing.

The whole debate over Allegedly channel will take in a lot of viewpoints. As a good few have pointed out the bottom line will be down to the pragmatics of economics. I personally hope it works out for the reasons I gave before. And they showed James Toney versus Lebedev; he got mullered, but still.

In the meantime we can enjoy the heightened passions surrounding the venture as it shows that there's life in the old dog yet. It is a good thing, we're gnashing and wailing ourselves to a point beyond subject/object to the land of zen appreciation of the sport of boxing and the realisation that there isn't even a -ject, and shit. Cut free from our earthly bonds in a joint effort to ensure the whole game doesn't die on its arse and leave us all to a middle age spent frequenting movie forums. Or worse, on the BBC sports boards.

As time ticks on we'll be united against a common foe, the sport's extinction. It will be like denouement of The Watchmen. Only better.

Yes, I have been frequenting movie forums.

The weird thing is Tel, the only thing I said in response to the thread title was 'No'. Literally. I didn't even make a case.

I mean, it's not like I said I wouldn't watch it.

Some people are just so sensitive...

[stujones]

I think a key point to this debate (thread of the year anyone?) has been where in any part of this has Ian used his "power" as Boxrec News editor to even attempt to influence anyone.

The OP asks the question - "will you be subscribing to the channel" - IAN'S reply was a simple "no". Its his answer, there is no "I don't expect any of you to do the same". - He just gave his own opinion - it wasn't hardly an attempt to control the masses into following him. He simply answered the question.

What about the several other authors on this and previous threads that have said no. Why was it Ian's one word, own opinion, response that got the criticism.

There are still impartial reports on here, there are still reports about the channel on this forum. There are still round by rounds etc. Yeah, Buncey got on his high horse cause Ian cited a PR from the completely free Daily Telegraph coverage of the world amateur champions and not promote that it was also on allegedly. However, did Ian tamper with the thread when Buncey responded? Did Ian delete any comments from allegedly staff - no he didn't. So he is not using his power to PROMOTE his "agenda" - just stating his personal views on whether he is subcribing, people here put 2 and 2 together and claimed it was a personal agenda.

When this site starts being moderated against the channel is when I will agree there will be an agenda is in action. I did note on a recent show, after there was a disagreement on here about some allegedly content - that boxrec didn't get a mention when Buncey said "I've been trawling through all the sites" - Eastside, Doghouse etc were mentioned - not here.

[dondada]

I think the BoxRec news editor perusing a personal issue with a promoter on the BoxRec forum isn't objective.

Quite right.

But would you expect me to be objective in this regard?

a) It's a forum
b) if it's, as you say, a personal issue then subjectivity is axiomatic

[stujones]

I've haven't said that BoxRec news isn't objective, I didn't single that out at all. I should have been clearer. I think the BoxRec news editor perusing a personal issue with a promoter on the BoxRec forum isn't objective. And my comment about them being under the same banner meant that the forum and the news site may be on different domain names but they're both BoxRec sites.

As for my work for Nathan's website, I think there's a difference between journalism and PR but I also think that I've always been as objective as I can be. I have to represent Nathan but it's never been anywhere near going over the balance, check my 'Rise and Rivalry of Tony Bellew' piece, or my interview with Bellew or the fight report of Clev-Bellew.

And whatever I've written about Welsh boxing has been objective (in my opinion, anyway!), you can see the Welsh Dragons series I did for Boxing News' website through the summer and judge for yourself.

There's 3 articles on SecondsOut that I've done this weekend, feel free to have a butchers but one's about a Welsh boxer so you'll obviously have to miss that

I aint sure how a simple "NO" comes under the banner of pursuing a personal issue. There have been lots of people saying yes they will subscribe, lots saying no. Has Ian responded to any of these at all? He hasn't edited anyones positive comments about the channel, he hasn't even attempted to try and persuade other people against it - even those in the "not sure" bracket.

People seem to have made out he is on some "mission" to make the channel fail, and I think its ridiculous to accuse him of that. Not when the forum is full of threads (positive and negative) about the channel.

[dewipowell]

I think the BoxRec news editor perusing a personal issue with a promoter on the BoxRec forum isn't objective.

Quite right.

But would you expect me to be objective in this regard?

a) It's a forum
b) if it's, as you say, a personal issue then subjectivity is axiomatic

Well played.

[leforge]

I've haven't said that BoxRec news isn't objective, I didn't single that out at all. I should have been clearer. I think the BoxRec news editor perusing a personal issue with a promoter on the BoxRec forum isn't objective. And my comment about them being under the same banner meant that the forum and the news site may be on different domain names but they're both BoxRec sites.

As for my work for Nathan's website, I think there's a difference between journalism and PR but I also think that I've always been as objective as I can be. I have to represent Nathan but it's never been anywhere near going over the balance, check my 'Rise and Rivalry of Tony Bellew' piece, or my interview with Bellew or the fight report of Clev-Bellew.

And whatever I've written about Welsh boxing has been objective (in my opinion, anyway!), you can see the Welsh Dragons series I did for Boxing News' website through the summer and judge for yourself.

There's 3 articles on SecondsOut that I've done this weekend, feel free to have a butchers but one's about a Welsh boxer so you'll obviously have to miss that

I aint sure how a simple "NO" comes under the banner of pursuing a personal issue. There have been lots of people saying yes they will subscribe, lots saying no. Has Ian responded to any of these at all? He hasn't edited anyones positive comments about the channel, he hasn't even attempted to try and persuade other people against it - even those in the "not sure" bracket.

People seem to have made out he is on some "mission" to make the channel fail, and I think its ridiculous to accuse him of that. Not when the forum is full of threads (positive and negative) about the channel.

This forum is not going to make the channel fail it will fail if it does not convince enough casual fans to subcribe. Most people on here can make there own minds up about subcription.